Sanjay Kumar Vs. U.T. Chandigarh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1065761
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-01-2013
AppellantSanjay Kumar
RespondentU.T. Chandigarh
Excerpt:
crm not m-13731 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m- 13731 of 2013(o&m) date of decision: july 1, 2013. sanjay kumar .....petitioner(s) versus u.t.chandigarh .....respondent (s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.ramesh sharma, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.sukant gupta, addl. p.p., u.t.***** ram chand gupta, j.(oral) the present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under section 438 of code of criminal procedure in fir no.68 dated 05.02.2013, under sections 420/467/468/471/511/120b ipc, registered at police station manimajra, chandigarh. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned additional sessions judge, chandigarh dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. crm not m-13731 o”2. this court while issuing notice of motion on 01.05.2013 passed the following order:- “crl.m.no.23460 of 2013 application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. crl.m.not m-13731 of 2013 contends that admittedly petitioner is a tenant of complainant and that complainant has already filed a petition for ejectment of petitioner from the premises in dispute. it is further submitted that alleged rent note was executed by complainant in favour of the petitioner and that false case has been registered against him just to pressurise him to vacate the premises. further contends that rent note was also duly attested from notary public and original is in possession of the complainant and copy of the same was supplied to him. further submitted that moreover the factum of execution of said rent agreement is to be decided in the pending rent petition. notice of motion for 1.7.2013. however, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the arresting officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under section 438 (2) cr.p.c.” it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 01.05.2013 it has also been stated by learned counsel for u.t., on instruction from si ramesh kumar, that petitioner has joined the investigation. however, bail application has been opposed. crm not m-13731 o”3. there are no allegations on behalf of the state that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the court, if released on bail. hence, in view of the fact that admittedly petitioner is tenant of complainant and complainant has already filed a petition for ejectment of petitioner from the premises in dispute and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of sanjay kumar is accepted and order dated 01.05.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under section 438(2) cr.p.c.the present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( ram chand gupta ) july 1, 2013. judge ‘om’
Judgment:

CRM not M-13731 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M- 13731 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: July 1, 2013.

Sanjay Kumar .....PETITIONER(s) Versus U.T.Chandigarh .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Sukant Gupta, Addl.

P.P., U.T.***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.68 dated 05.02.2013, under Sections 420/467/468/471/511/120B IPC, registered at police station Manimajra, Chandigarh.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

CRM not M-13731 o”

2. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 01.05.2013 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.23460 of 2013 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M.not M-13731 of 2013 Contends that admittedly petitioner is a tenant of complainant and that complainant has already filed a petition for ejectment of petitioner from the premises in dispute.

It is further submitted that alleged rent note was executed by complainant in favour of the petitioner and that false case has been registered against him just to pressurise him to vacate the premises.

Further contends that rent note was also duly attested from Notary public and original is in possession of the complainant and copy of the same was supplied to him.

Further submitted that moreover the factum of execution of said rent agreement is to be decided in the pending rent petition.

Notice of motion for 1.7.2013.

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.”

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 01.05.2013 It has also been stated by learned counsel for U.T., on instruction from SI Ramesh Kumar, that petitioner has joined the investigation.

However, bail application has been opposed.

CRM not M-13731 o”

3. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Hence, in view of the fact that admittedly petitioner is tenant of complainant and complainant has already filed a petition for ejectment of petitioner from the premises in dispute and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Sanjay Kumar is accepted and order dated 01.05.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 1, 2013.

JUDGE ‘om’